Anti-Semitism – A View from the Frontline

As the row about Labour and anti-Semitism continues to intensify, I thought it timely to get some opinions from one of our loyal Jewish UKIP members, as only they can tell us how it really feels to be on the receiving end of anti-Semitism. I also thought it would be important to ask them their opinion on UKIP’s point of view on the IHRA definition.

Janice (J): Why did you join UKIP?

Friend (F): I believe in the restoration of British Sovereignty and joined UKIP to fight for the Referendum and to leave the EU.

(J): When did you join UKIP?

(F): 2013 and have been not only an active branch member but also a Parliamentary candidate.

(J): Do you feel anti-Semitism is rising in the UK?

(F): Yes. Anti Jewish and anti Israel attacks are commonplace on the internet, trolling and unpleasantness on message boards is constant. Jewish students feel unsafe at Universities, Jewish graves are vandalised, Jewish shops attacked and Jewish schools and places of worship need huge security and are on a high state of alert.

(J): If Jeremy Corbyn became PM what would you do?

(F): I love the UK and do not want to leave but I am frightened. Jewish people are a tiny minority and we are only safe when the government protects us. Labour under a Corbyn government clearly would not do so; that is a terrifying thought. Jewish life in the UK would become as dangerous as in France and could become impossible.

(J): How do you feel about UKIP reportedly rejecting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition?

(F): Disappointed and very worried. Labour rejected it and the Jewish community staged the only ever protest it has held against a mainstream party – that is how strongly we feel about it. Our former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, has explained that by rejecting this definition, Labour is promoting a new anti-Semitic trope; this links Jews, money and Zionism. Zionist or Zio is now a term of abuse and a codeword for Jews – even though some of the greatest Zionists were Christians such as George Eliot, Balfour, Lloyd George and Churchill. We have to have this proper definition and UKIP must accept it.

(J): What about the official party line that we unofficially agree? And that our constitution is enough and that we cannot have Free Speech compromised by signing outside petitions and statements?

(F): The definition has to be accepted as it stands by every party with no exceptions. The definition does not prevent free speech or proper criticism of Israel. It stops demonisation of the Jewish people. UKIP is not entitled to hold itself as separate to other countries, parties, councils, institutions and all decent non racist opinion. The Government and every other party and major institution in the UK has accepted it. It is appalling, racist and anti-Semitic for UKIP to fail to do so.

(J): Will you leave UKIP if we don’t endorse it?

(F): Yes, of course.

(J): Is there anything else you would like to say?

(F): It is a huge disappointment to me that UKIP should even think of acting in this way.

The interview ended there.

It saddens me that in this era we are now dealing with extreme anti-Semitism spreading across Europe. Many Jews have found a safe and happy home in our country and have proved to be good and faithful citizens. It is even more sad that they now feel under threat in the UK as well and many are considering leaving due to the actions of the Labour leader and the anti-Semitism of many in the Labour Party.

Whatever your stance on how UKIP should respond – whether we should officially endorse the IHRA definition or continue as we are, relying on our constitution – we cannot deny that the threat to our Jewish citizens is real, as is their fear for the future.

Many times in the past our country has had to choose a side. And while I have no doubt that UKIP is the best party to defend the freedom of all our British citizens, regardless of race or religion, is it now time for us to officially accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism? Not to prove we are not anti-Semitic, there is no doubt in my mind on that. But to send a clear message to those that are – that we will not tolerate an attack on any of our citizens.

Either way, this problem is not going away any time soon – and I believe UKIP is the only party that can solve it. Let’s take it by the horns and do so..

83 Comments

martin macrae
on September 15, 2018 at 7:38 pm

WELL, the London mayor said a short while ago that belief was genetic, if we are going to live in the kind of world where opinions like that overrule fact,,,, then this is what follows: When people from a certain belief kill UK citizens in the name of that belief (God is Great etc, etc) it would be justifiable to lock up all those of that belief: they could do no other, they are only following their genetic make-up. Very well, get on with it.

Corralling all members of a belief like that, say, Jewish with the Jewish who live in Israel is pretty much the same thing, conflating the two. Only in the politically correct world of the liberal elite can this absurdity be postured to show the utterer’s high-mindedness. The liberal elite’s love of the downtrodden (Hamas, Hzbola etc) , their hatred of white people.

“UKIP has always believed that our inclusive constitution would provide the exact same shield for Jewish citizens of the UK as it does for all creeds, religions and races. However, this is not about legality, about rules, or about definitions: it is about perception. UKIP is not about racism and I will not allow it to be portrayed as such.

As such as such I urge all members to vote to add the IHRA definition to our constitution.”

There you go, Gerard. Done and dusted, foxes shot. It’s called politics.

Concrete boulders to protect us from terrorism are now being put up all over London- – but Jewish schools have always had to have them as some people think it’s ok to attack little children just because of their religion.

I am not a “Zionist”, but the time to object to the formation or existence of the state of Israel was during 1945-7, ending with the UN vote on 29/11/1947. (The issue was not that after centuries of persecution culminating in the crimes of the Nazis, Jews needed a homeland. It was that the homeland “chosen” was far from vacant).

But that was over SEVENTY YEARS AGO! There’s nothing more to discuss. Most in Israel, Jewish or not, were born there.

Israel is a functioning democracy, as is India. Geographically between these two “I”s, there isn’t any other functioning democracy at all.

It is far too early to judge reborn Iraq as “functional”. Pakistan’s been a military dictatorship again and again and again, and a return to military rule and coup is probably overdue; moreover, Imran Khan is IMO a dangerous fanatic (the reasonable, genial cricketer has disappeared). Afghanistan is pure anarchy. Iran is a pseudo-democracy as the unelected Supreme Leader is … supreme. The other countries in-between aren’t even close. Food for thought?

We need an Israel.

Enlargements to Israel were made as safety buffers as the fledgeling state’s geographically and population-wise enormous neighbours tried, again and again, to obliterate it by military force. They lost each time.

A modern battle tank, unopposed, could make it in several hours from the Golan Heights to the Mediterranean. With the exception of poor battered Lebanon, relatively enlightened Jordan and (eventually) the good Anwar Sadat’s Egypt, the degree of neighbourly assault on little Israel is unprecedented. Israel is entitled to be paranoid as a result.

There is wrong on both sides, as always, but the anti-Israel sentiments whipped up by the madmen, bigots and terrorists of Labour reveal it for what it is.

What do you call someone who turned up at Nuremberg in a fantastic Mercedes-Benz, sitting next to Adolf, but then claimed he thought he was only attending a car rally?

On a separate note we should consider that in the late nineteenth century, prior to the rise of Zionism, Jews are thought to have comprised between 2% to 5% of the population of Palestine. There were far more Christians than Jews living in Palestine and those Jews vehemently were against Zionism as they lived peaceably with their Christian and Muslim neighbours. It is American and European funded Zionism that has caused mayhem in Palestine.

We have witnessed in 100 years a reverse takeover of Palestine principally by Eastern European Khazarian Jews, who arguably, can no more trace their lineage back to the state of Palestine than an Orkney sheep farmer of Viking blood.

The indigenous peoples of the UK may have more in common with the plight of the Palestinian people than they feel comfortable to admit.

It is not only chefs who need to carefully consider their sauces. Your source is not, IMO, truly neutral. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel too. Israel is more than a professed democracy. It is a flawed one, but which democracy isn’t? In India, all adults outside prison or mental institutions are fully entitled by law to vote, but for a poor untouchable in a village that franchise is often impractical to use.

You are right that loads – not just the ones you mention, but also Druze, non-Arab Muslims, Kurds, agnostics/atheists and unclassifiable gnostics happily co-existed until mass immigration into Palestine again. You are right that many long-settled Jews opposed Zionism. You are right that mitochondrial DNA studies suggest the link between Khazar Jews of Europe and the original occupants of Palestine in Biblical times is remote. If there was a Jesus, TBH he would have probably looked (I’m talking physical appearance) more like Yasser Arafat or even Osama bin Laden than the Nordic so often portrayed.

Britain reluctantly assumed the mantle of administrator under the post-WW1 Palestinian mandate from the League of Nations, taking over from the Ottoman Empire which had picked the wrong side in the war. It was a poisoned chalice indeed. We didn’t meddle all that much, IMO. Someone had to rule there back in 1918. We’re mainly guilty of not being as tough as the Turks had been – for decades they blocked almost all migration, Muslim or Jewish, into the combustible area. This conflict was fuelled by mass, uncontrolled immigration.

Our far more pernicious recent regional meddling, with US help, was in Iran, where we deposed a popular, perfectly reasonable (and, far from a religious extremist, IMO an atheist) ELECTED leader – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh – only because he, a reformer, wanted a slightly less unfair slice of the oil cake. The US-UK installed a puppet shah, and see where it’s all ended up, with son-of-shah deposed, the country regressed a century and mad mullahs running amok, with oil-money funded mischief far afield. Iran is the only country in the world, boasted Ahmadinejad (sp?), with zero gays… and he was a moderate!

In Israel, the right to vote in national elections is determined solely by citizenship.

Long-term residents who aren’t citizens – mainly Muslims – can vote in municipal elections and have a right to obtain citizenship subject to time and crime related criteria. Many do obtain it.

Therefore, the use of “apartheid” to describe Israel is mistaken, and dilutes the horror of true apartheid as existed in, say, the Republic of South Africa.

I am careful not to throw epithets like that around. To accuse people (you haven’t, this is merely an illustration) of being, say, Nazis is almost always inaccurate and indeed serves to trivialise the monstrous crimes perpetrated by the happily extinct Nazis of yesteryear. If idiots like Merkel could get this, she’d perhaps stop punishing the rest of us for what her ancestors or their mates did…

Freddy Israel has more than flaws in its democracy it institutionally discriminates against its Palestinian populace to this day. The reasons for this are well understood. Right from the start of the creation of the state of Israel the Zionists founders realised that with the numerically greater number of Palestinians they could not secure governance of Israel as a minority people. David Ben Gurion himself acknowledged the Zionists had stolen someone elses country and could not therefore expect to live harmoniously with someone whose land they had stolen. Whether by design or not in 1948 the Nakba “the catastrophe” resulted in 750,000 Arab Palestinians being driven out of Israel and never allowed to return (ethnic cleansing?) Only under international pressure in 1952 did Israel relent and bestow a kind of citzenship on the remaining Palestinians (about 250,00).
Freddy, I don’t know how you would respond if someone stole your land and expelled you and your family from your ancesteral homeland but I would not blame you if you set out to attempt to take them back in whatever way you could.

I’ve been away on holiday last week, and have taken the time to do some further reading. I’m just now finding this whole ‘anti-Semitism’ matter really bizarre, and think this is just a tip of an iceberg that is going to develop further.

Anti-semitism: does anybody really know what a Semite actually is? ‘Semite’ refers to peoples speaking various Semitic languages from the Middle East area, languages including Hebrew, Canaanite, Akkadian and of course Arabic.

In the modern sense of the word, ‘anti-Semitism’ seems to be exclusively reserved for use by the Jews (or in particular the Zionists of the Israeli Government). This is perhaps because it has been established for some time that the Jewish people are not a ‘race’, and therefore cries of ‘racist’ do not really work.

The vast majority of Jews now living in Israel, as well as Europe and North America, are actually descended from the Khazars, an empire in the Caucasus region, which converted to Judaism en masse, and then moved onwards west into what is now Eastern Europe.

These Ashkenazi Jews (as they became known) were the ones who became persecuted by the Nazis, and who eventually settled in the newly formed state of Israel after the Second World War. There is also a small minority of Sephardi Jews, who were actually descended from the original Jews who lived in that area.

So this is a point that a lot of people are either missing, or simply don’t know about, as I did.

Here I am seperating the Zionists from the ordinary Jewish people, who are clearly just as much victims of all this as everybody else and have been sold the same lie.

Criticism of the state of Israel, and of Israeli Jews is ‘anti-Semitic’, yet the vast majority of modern Jews are not actually Semitic people (or at least not of Semitic descent)?

So how long is it going to be before criticism of any Arab country or people is going to be branded ‘Anti-Semitic’ in the same way? After all, Palestinans, Iraqis, Iranians. Saudis etc etc are all Semitic peoples too!

This is the big irony: someone like Jeremy Corbyn has spoken in support of Palestinians, yet he is the anti-Semite?

I’d just like to finish by stating that I have no problem with ordinary Jewish people, but I feel that we should have the right to fairly criticise the Israeli government and its actions, without being branded racist or ‘anti-Semite’ as a result. Just as much as I welcome fair criticism of our own government from outsiders.

Stuart I am aware of the original meaning of the word Semite. These days in general and for the purpose of those piece of writing it is used to describe anyone Jewish. I’ve agreed we should be able to criticise Israel and in itself is not discrimination, of course. So, as UKIP has unofficially endorsed the IHRA definition, do you think we should make it official? Having read some of the responses on here, I think we probably should.

I’ve just read through the IHRA definition, and would mostly agree with it, so I would have no problem if UKIP were to ‘officially’ adopt it. There were a couple of things I observed in that document though:

-“Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property”

I’m puzzled about the inclusion of ‘non-Jewish individuals’ in that statement…

-“Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”

True, that’s not really nice. But its hardly a ‘myth’, it is true that there are a number of Jews who do hold positions of power and influence, however the statements about “world Jewish conspiracy” or “Jews controlling the media etc” would be more truthful and not anti-Semitic if you replace Jew and Jewish with ‘Zionist’. Or even ‘Globalist’.

-“Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.”

This is the real interesting one, how often do we hear about radical Islamist preachers being charged with anti-semitism? People can quote numerous passages from the Quran where there are calls to kill or harm Jews, so by definition is the Quran not anti-semitic?

The irony is that Arabic Muslims would also be classed as Semites, and that would become a concern if this ‘anti-semitism definition’ were to be broadened in future…

Stuart Thankyou for your intelligent and considerate response. I was hoping that we could all have a well meaning debate on here’ but until you and Freddy entered the conversation no one seemed to understand that we have already unofficially endorsed the definition. I wanted to discuss whether we should make it official or not. I do understand what you are saying that maybe it should just be called anti Jewish etc to be clear that it’s not about Israel or anyone else.

UKIP have endorsed the IHRA definition unofficially but it seems most on here disagree. One of two have been quite personally rude which is unnecessary. But to those that have contributed intelligently – thanks. It’s a shame the ones who were rude to me don’t afford me the same free speech as they claim to support.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

I fundamentally oppose this because it fetters freedom of expression, is sensationalist and actually neatly entraps many Jews in it’s net (like, for example, Jews who might condemn religious Jews as homophobic for their string views on homosexuality.)”

The key word in this is HATRED, what the hell is that about?:- “Rhetorical and physical manifestations are directed individuals and/or their property.” We hear an endless stream of this in UKIP directed at the burka and those who wear it. Is that Islamophobic? Bear in my that I am AGAINST banning the Burka so I have no axe to grind on that,

There are people out there who dislike us Jews but do not hate. Big difference, Disliking is being disparaging and seeking to avoid interaction with those one dislikes. It is the pursuit of those you dislike to cause them harm, problems etc that turns it to hate.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with slagging off those one dislikes or avoiding interaction with them. That is not pursuing them to cause them harm or denying them their rights. Many of us had a strong dislike for Henry Bolton, However we did not seek to harm him or his property nor deny his human and civil rights.

Finally, being Jewish I’d like to end by saying that anyone writing anything that undermines what I have written is anti-Semitic so you’d better be nice and agree word for word.

I cannot see how objecting to male circumcision is a reason to not officially endorse the IHRA definition. As we have discussed, circumcision is not limited to Jewish people anyway, so why is it a factor?

Ukip should not adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism?

Um Ukip should make it a written part of it’s constitution that it does not adopt the agenda or principles of any other party or grouping, but that it makes an informed decision upon where it stands on whatever it may stand for without adoption of or reference to any other organisation or grouping and that should it’s agenda or principles match it is through co-incidence.

Regarding the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, they are not representative of all Jews and cannot assume the right to dictate a “Jewish Agenda.” UKIP might decide for itself if it has a code,

From a Jewish perspective I can inform you quite categorically that all parries adopting the same Jewish generated definition rather than politically generated definition will only increase the anti-Semitic mantra that it’s the jewish conspiracy and all the parties are kow-towing to Jewish interests….. and would not be making an unfair point.

People should wake up to the fact that this “Labour anti-Semitism” saga is not having any impact of Labour and it has reached a point where it is beginning to backfire against those that doth protest too much. Finally all the comments from Jews about leaving the country if Labour get in…..The more you talk about it the more likely it will happen

If it was about blacks or Muslims many of us would be muttering about political correctness.

Ukip should not adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism? It does not mean we are anti-semetic not to do it. Our party wants freedom of speech which to many other political parties is an anathema. We should be able to use freedom of speech to say what we like and dont like about other groups of people. I think not allowing peolple to have an opinion will lead to greater conflicts. Look back in history to see how true this is. Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia and more.

Richard Lee, IHRA definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

That does not prevent free speech. It does not prevent criticism of Israel. The difference is vital: does someone do a bad thing (assuming the critic has a valid point – not always the case anyway) because he is wrong, or because he is a Jew. The bile typically emanating from Corbyn’s Labour is often the latter. It condemns the person’s identity, not his error. It is ad hominem. That is what’s wrong. That is anti-semitism.

While it does not affect your reasoning, Janice, the best figure for the number of Jewish people who died as a direct result of the Holocaust (including from mistreatment, malnutrition etc.) is close to 5.1 million.

Citation: The Destruction of the European Jews, by Raul Hilberg (revised & enlarged 1985). It is the definitive work and all other studies are derivative. I have both editions.

Competent historians will back me up on this, subject to the caveat below:

We’ll never have even an approximate number because Hitler, who always had an eye on history, knew what history’s verdict would be, so ensured no proper records were kept and much was destroyed. We do have Reichsbahn train tickets for the numbers of Jews transported by train from certain places to certain extermination camps.

Study after study shows the grand total was very unlikely to be fewer than 4.8 million or more than 5.7 million.

Hitler also made sure his signature doesn’t appear on any holocaust-relevant document and his name did not appear on any distribution list. But of course he’d instructed Himmler to kill as many Jews as he could. Those like Irving who argue otherwise are fools, liars or both.

Even at a time the Nazis were losing, and short of munitions, they razed the extermination subcamp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, buried Treblinka deep underground (building a fake-aged farm on the top of it), etc., trying to conceal their massive crimes. More revealing than anything else.

The reason for the 6 million figure (made up at a time when it was thought 4 million were murdered at Auschwitz, mainly Jews – now we know it was 1.1 million, of whom about a million were Jews. Most of the murdering was carried out elsewhere) being stuck to is to deprive holocaust-deniers ammunition and use of the slippery-slope fallacy. Personally, I think the truth is strong enough to withstand the assault of the deranged who try to twist the historical record to say the number is in the low hundreds of thousands and was mainly accidental – a giant lie.

That said, 6 million is the upper end figure, rounded to the nearest million, so perhaps one should stick with it. As I said, the Nazis covered up their crime as best they could. When our troops overran Belsen (my youthful uncle served in Germany with one of the soldiers who had taken the camp) they were dumbstruck at what they found – they’d had no idea. In another camp taken by the yanks, on seeing the horrific state of the survivors, they just machine-gunned all the surrendered Nazi guards without further ado. And these were the “better” (!) concentration or extermination camps – most of the 3,000 camps were east of Germany and were taken by the Soviets. Perhaps partly as a result, the Soviet Union was the first country to recognise the state of Israel.

History has absolutely nothing to do with it. Freedom of speech and expression are under attack with the IHRA definition, and if that principle is to be upheld no one has the right to suppress it on the grounds of personal offence.

Janice North. Do you agree that FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is a totally barbaric practice completely unacceptable to any civilized person and it is absolutely right that it is illegal in the UK? What is your view of MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) as practised by Jews?

PeterUST, The two are not remotely comparable. FGM, as commonly understood, is more comparable with castration. In contrast, circumcision is a very minor procedure that removes no functionality or ability or feeling. Its effect is no different to piercing for earrings.

Nick Martinek. So circumcision is not MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) ? The difference between FGM and MGM is one of degree, not kind. Your comments on other posts on this thread show quite clearly that you are hardly an objective observer.

Yes I am, very much so. FGM and MGM (circumcision to you) both involve cutting and removing tissue from the genitals. Is that correct? Yes or no?

Janice
on September 8, 2018 at 11:53 am

Peter Ust you should try to be objective rather than personal. This article has helped me see how some of you think. It has been a lot better received elsewhere. The circumcision argument seems to be going round in circles a bit. But thanks anyway for your interest and contribution.

PeterUST, they are similar in the way you state but I’m sure you’re aware that male and female sexuality and pleasure mechanisms are, at a physiological level, completely different.

Cats and dogs share most of their DNA, but I have no difficulty distinguishing the two.

FGM does have horrific, irreversible effects. It is a control mechanism on women. It is an African idea practised by Christians in the west and Muslims in the north-east.

Male circumcision is an absurd stone-age practice with almost zero medical justification, but apart from the cruelty of the procedure itself, doesn’t leave such scars and was originally intended to have religious significance (“circumcision of the spirit” too).

I’m an atheist and wholly objective about this nonsense. Both are bad but one is much worse.

I am totally opposed to FGM it is disgusting. male circumcision is not quite the same thing, far from it. Our royalty used to do it, in fact may still do so, I think Prince Charles was circumcised. It is very popular in the USA and more common than not – in New York it is unusual to not be circumcised. It is popular around the world for hygiene reasons. The two are incomparable. FGM is not female circumcision – it is abuse and disfiguration, often causing death, Breast ironing is also disgusting. I don’t think you can really say we shouldnt oppose amti semitism because they practice male circumcision?

Male circumcision is child abuse. It should be banned. The ‘hygiene’ reason is a load of nonsense. The fact that it is popular in the USA is further proof how much power a certain lobby has in that country.

I could not care less whether Prince Charles had it done, mind you it would explain some of the garbage he comes out with.

What jews do in Israel or Muslims do in their countries is their own business but we should not have to tolerate their barbaric practices such as halal/kosher slaughter, circumcision, FGM etc here in Britain.

Prince Charles and his two brothers were ritually circumcised by a rabbi, thereby suggesting a peculiar Jewish connection in high places with a supposedly Christian family, but saying such a thing would be deemed unacceptably ‘antisemitic’ under the IHRA definition. Little by little, our freedom to question and criticise is being eroded.

There has always been a connection between Jews and Christians – we use the same bible and pray to the same God. Many of the first Christians were Jewish. Why would it be anti-Semitic to mention a Jewish connection to the Royal Family?

Not quite. Jews don’t recognise the validity of the New Testament and consider Christ to have been a fraud and a heretic. As for the same God, there is plenty of room for disagreement there whereby the Christian God of the New Testament is forgiving and well-balanced, whereas the Jewish God of the Old Testament is jealous, vicious and spiteful, much more akin to the Islamic Allah.

It could be construed as antisemitic ‘hate speech’ when suggesting that a rabbi circumcising the princes has some conspiratorial or covert connection between Judaism and the Royal Family – and that is an example of the oppressive nature of the IHRA definition with regard to free speech.

As to your comments on Abrahamic Gods, may I remind you that the pernicious doctrine of Hell (i.e., eternal punishment / torture in hellfire – God is not satisfied with torments we face when alive, but extends this punishment forever and ever) was introduced in the *New* Testament?

In that sense (only), the OT God is more benign.

The only caveat is that some interpretations (e.g., that of the Jehovah’s WItnesses, who are barely Christian IMO as they do not equate Christ with God) interpret Hell as Sheol, the Grave.

I am an atheist and dismiss all religions as fairy tales, but respect the rights of others to believe in Whale-Tummy Jonah while dismissing Jack and the Beanstalk, as long as they respect my right to chuckle.

Cranky
on September 6, 2018 at 2:43 pm

It’s noticeable that the ‘Friend’ complains about “attacks” (I assume verbal) against Israel. However, if (F) is a British citizen, why the concern about criticism being levelled against a foreign country? Is it because (F) has dual nationality? If that’s the case then loyalty to Britain is only partial and therefore compromised, divided, and unreliable. It’s equatable to the British Muslim who would refuse to fight against an Islamic country, or indulge in any activity that is any way detrimental to his Muslim ‘brothers’ abroad.

I wonder where all these physical attacks in the UK against Jews that (F) speaks of are happening, because I’ve not seen any reports about it – other than at a single cemetery some years ago -not even in the pro-Zionist mainstream media! I’ve seen hostility reported against Zionists from Leftists and Muslims at universities, but that’s against the ideology, not the race. In light of the recent debacle in the Labour Party, it would appear that Zionist Jews are now jumping on the victimisation bandwagon. After all, only a deluded fool brainwashed by the mainstream media would actually believe that a Jeremy Corbyn government would be in the business of anti-Jewish pogroms.

If any government or organisation applies the IHRA definition, it must, for the sake of equality, also apply the same principle to the adherents of Islam with regard to so-called ‘Islamophobia’. How long before criticism of kosher ritual slaughter of livestock (shechita) is regarded as antisemitic? UKIP has always supported the principle of free speech and expression, but the IHRA definition of antisemitism attacks that principle.

“I wonder where all these physical attacks in the UK against Jews that (F) speaks of are happening, because I’ve not seen any reports about it – other than at a single cemetery some years ago.”

I found this after 60 secs of searching;

“More than 100 antisemitic incidents recorded in UK every month as bigots ‘become more confident’
Community Security Trust warns of ‘longer-term phenomenon’ after recording second-highest number of incidents ever.

Children as young as 11 have been physically attacked, while appalling graffiti has been daubed on homes and synagogues and MPs have been targeted with antisemitic abuse after speaking out on the issue.

The Community Security Trust (CST) counted the second-highest number of incidents on record between January and June this year, citing issues including violence on the Gaza border and debate around the Labour Party as drivers.

Of the 727 incidents recorded, three quarters were categorised as abuse, including antisemitic graffiti, hate mail and social media posts, and the vast majority happened in the main Jewish centres of London and Manchester.

There were also 59 violent assaults, 53 direct threats, 43 incidents of damage and desecration of Jewish property – including gravestones – and 28 incidents of mass-produced literature being sent out. Just over a fifth of incidents involved social media.

In February, “Adolf Hitler was right” was scrawled on a fence in Merseyside, then in April MPs were targeted with antisemitic abuse following a parliamentary debate on the issue.”

For those whose irony meters don’t work, the suggestions were not serious. The comment about the result of Labour’s encouragement was serious, though.

To doubt that antisemitism is at plague proportions in Britain is to ignore mountains of evidence. Jewish migration figures are rising too.

Antisemitism in Britain today is worse than it was in the 1930s.

While I do believe Oswald Mosley was personally antisemitic, the organisation he set up in 1932 (the British Union of Fascists) was perhaps not, at least by contemporary definitions of antisemitism. Also, the BUF frequently and vitrolically condemned and (worse) lampooned and ridiculed European Fascists and Nazis – as a result, its paper’s editors were on SD chief SS-Brigadefuehrer Walter Schellenberg’s 1940 hit-list, Sonderfahndungsliste G.B. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book).

Even a casual reading of the Qur’an and Hadith shows how Mohammed despised Jews; the more you look, the more you’ll find. This may have been a result of rough handling by the Jews of Medina 13-14 centuries ago.

And even the nimble number-cruncher Diane Abbott has managed to figure out there’s more votes with Muslims than with Jews… more than eleventeen times as many.

Cranky
on September 9, 2018 at 3:19 pm

Why focus on Mohammed’s dislike of Jews? After all, he felt the same about Christians too, as is clear in Quran [5:52]: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily, Allah guides not the unjust people.”

With regard to victimisation by Islam, Jews have no more right to claim victim-hood than Christians but, as ever, they will anyway. After all, it was Christians who were suffering mass-extermination in Syria, but not Jews; they were too busy giving aid to ISIS and its allies from over the border.

> Why focus on Mohammed’s dislike of Jews? After all, he felt the same about Christians too

Cranky, I have studied the Qur’an, and Hadith, and it is evident your study thereof was not as thorough.

The degree of hatred expressed towards Jews, both in terms of quality and quantity, is unique.

Cranky
on September 10, 2018 at 12:34 am

Plenty of us have taken the trouble to make a study of the Quran and hadiths; it’s par for the course. However, the only reason Mohammed expressed more hatred towards Jews than Christians was because he came into contact with the former more often.

Cranky
on September 9, 2018 at 3:01 pm

It seems like you’ve had an irony bypass, as well as a disconnect with reality. The recent debacle in the Labour Party with regard to supposed ‘antisemitism’ has been promoted by Zionist Blairites together with their chums in the media. It’s not particularly different to the scenario in Chris Mullins’ novel: ‘A Very British Coup’.

UKIP supporters should be well aware of the skulduggery committed by ruling elites, but clearly they are not.

We have to accept that there are two points of view on this, and I have every respect for this one.
However, I am very aware that there is another point of view in the Jewish community which thinks differently.
There is also the very important issue of free speech.
UKIP does not need to adopt any international defination in order to treat all citizens in society equally.
It is true that there are hard line muslims in the Labour party who are hostile to Jews as such.
However, they are the minority.
This issue is all about the freedom to debate the policies of the current Israeli government, which is a minority one.
It also about the freedom to debate the issue of zionism, which many Jewish people oppose.
Let us also remember that the Palestinians are not all muslims- many are Christians.
Conversely, if UKIP goes down the road of curbing free speech, it will lose a lot of supporters.
Ironically, the Labour “cop out” will satisfy most members of their party and will dampen the campaign against them.
It would be unwise for UKIP to enter this debate and to stick to defending free speech.

Labour members of Jewish faith did not kick up a fuss when their party supported racist paedophile grooming gangs, invited 3 million economic migrants in to the UK and are plotting to steal Brexit from us.

Bryan Tomlinson, That is exactly right. But many more Labour members who are not Jewish, did exactly the same thing. Therefore it is not their Jewishness that is to blame. Indeed it is much more likely that those in Labour who are overly empathetic with Muslims turned a blind eye and made excuses because of this inbuilt bigotry (Jeremy, I’m looking at you).

All people in Britain enjoy protection of the rule of law. If one group seeks to be treated differently then other groups will seek the same with the consequent erosion of the rule of law. For UKIP to sign this declaration would be to contradict our commitment to free speech.

We dont have to sign anything. All we have to do is say that we agree with the definition. Simple as that. Jews are already being treated differently as anti-semitism is on the rise. All other institutions and parties have endorsed it, except Labour who are vehemently anti- Semitic. Do we agree with them???

What a load of nonsense. That’s like people supporting the building of a mosque just because they don’t want to be seen as aligning with the BNP, who would oppose it. The fact is that if you declare agreement with the IHRA definition, then you are conspiring to limit criticism of Israel or any activity by Jews, and that is an attack on free speech and expression.

UKIP have already said they endorse the IHRA definition unoffically. Im asking if they should make it official. So the question is not whether they should or should not agree, they already do. But whether they should make it officlal or not.

Any acceptance of the IHRA definition, as the Labour Party has now done, would amount to an act of unprincipled intellectual cowardice.

Janice
on September 6, 2018 at 11:11 pm

UKIP has already unofficially endorsed it from the top

NickC
on September 6, 2018 at 11:53 pm

Janice North, Yes, UKIP should officially adopt the IHRA definition. It does not prevent free speech, or halt condemnation of the state of Israel. UKIP is not anti-semitic as Labour clearly is – even if they’ve finally adopted the IHRA definition. We cannot promote our policies, including free speech, if we are condemned outright as racists before we open our mouths. The political cost is zero – because we already agree with it unofficially. Above all, we must recognise the IHRA definition because it’s right.

Janice
on September 7, 2018 at 7:28 am

Thankyou Nick. That’s what I’m saying. We say we agree anyway. Why not make it official.

Cranky
on September 7, 2018 at 11:32 am

Such a cowardly attitude, worrying about being condemned as racists by the Left!

The IHRA definition DOES blatantly restrict freedom of speech. It denies the right to criticise Israel as an ethno-state, which it clearly is; forbids the right of anyone to suggest that Jews work together as a collective within, eg. the media, which they obviously do, and further forbids any questioning of any Jewish activity related to ‘the holocaust’, so even Norman Finkelstein (author of ‘The Holocaust Industy’) – a Jew – would be ludicrously condemned as an anti-Semite!

Just who do these people are to think that they should have such special privileges of protection against criticism? If such a principle is accepted, then a similar one for Islam will be coming down the road, and another for gender-benders. So ultimately, every minority group that considers itself hard done by is protected by some Orwellian definition while the majority is forced into a further Orwellian intellectual straitjacket. And you consider that to be acceptable??

I’m not aware that the party has accepted the definition but if it has then, as supposed supporters of free speech, it’s guilty of gross hypocrisy and intellectual cowardice.

NickC
on September 7, 2018 at 12:48 pm

Cranky, You are being impertinent for saying that I support UKIP endorsement of the IHRA definition out of cowardice. It is a question of what is morally right. And also a question of tangible proof for the MSM so that we can get our policies out there without being shut down immediately as “racists”.

Like many in UKIP I have been out on the streets with UKIP literature and experienced anti-UKIP bigotry first hand. Fortunately not violent so far. Statist/Labour street thugs will remain what they are, but more moderate people are persuadable. This is a way to persuade them.

Let me give an example. If a Jewish banker is corrupt, is he corrupt because he is a Jew, or because he is corrupt? Quite clearly it is irrational, as well as wrong, to say the banker is corrupt because he is a Jew. That is all the IHRA definition tries to accomplish. It’s not a law, it’s guidance to try to avoid ad hominems that play into the hands of anti-Jew extremists who do envisage violence.